Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 190

Archive 185

←

Archive 188

Archive 189

Archive 190

Move Assessments Section

If you look at the top level sections for this article, Assessments clearly is not fitting in with the others. Part of this is because they are really just assessments of his first term. I propose making it a subsection of the first presidency. The small poll that covers the second presidency can be incorporated as a sentence or two there. Czarking0 (talk) 00:19, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Actually, the Assessments section is in the place it would normally be found in President biography articles. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I have worked on several GA presidency articles with no assessment section at all. Do you believe there is a guideline on this? If not I don't see how your "normally" is indicative of any consensus. Czarking0 (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

For some elaboration on the history of edits in this section. The section contains material which would normally be included in a Legacy section, though since Trump is still living and now in a second term office, then it seemed better to use the section title of Assessments. The section ought to also include upcoming edits on his performance in the second term. I'm thinking that once the second term is over that the section shall have the name changed to Legacy. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I think what you are proposing is reasonable but we should not keep the article in a temporary state for 4 years. I think my original idea is better in the interim Czarking0 (talk) 23:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Image of Proud Boys in "Violence and hate crimes subsection"

Trump's refusal to condemn the white supremacist Proud Boys during a 2020 presidential debate[590] and his comment, "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by", were attributed to increased recruitment for the pro-Trump group.[591]

I am not going to pull up diffs, but I removed this photo and someone has added it back. I object to this photo because it violates the spirit of BLP, and more specifically BLPCRIME. Unless there is reliable sourcing that all three men in this photo have been convicted for a violent act or for a hate crime the photo should be removed because readers could insinuate from the placement and context that they are criminals. Also, do we even know definitively that these men are Proud Boys? Because if one of them it is not we are literally suggesting they are part of organization that is characterized in the thumbnail as white supremacist. These are non-public figures who are being insinuated as violent, racist, criminal, etc. and we don't even know who they are or what their history is. Furthermore, this photo is just tangibly relevant to Trump himself, and may not be appropriate not even considering my BLP objections. R. G. Checkers ^talk 03:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

One of them is carrying a Proud Boys flag and all of them are wearing the shirts the group commonly wears. Their identification as members is secure. The PB are recognized as a hate group by experts, so we are clear on that. Nothing in the caption states that the PB, much less these individuals, have committed any particular crimes.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:00, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

We may could assume the one with the flag is PB, but the other two is less clear. But still no reliable sources for any of them. If they haven’t committed crimes then why are they in a subsection about violence and hate crimes? I’m failing to see the reason for inclusion or relevancy, and the BLP concerns still hang. The insinuations that go along with this image and more specifically its placement is unethical to those in it. I’m going to remove the image until a consensus is reached per WP:BLPRESTORE. R. G. Checkers ^talk 23:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

No, the burden is on those wishing to remove longstanding content from the page. Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean you can remove it and then everyone else has to prove to you why the content should remain. BLP does not apply in this instance. If you disagree that these people are even Proud Boys, then you should go to all the other pages where this image appears and identifies them as Proud Boys and contest removal there as well. BootsED (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@R. G. Checkers, you have reverted this image again claiming BLPRESTORE. To be frank, BLPRESTORE does not apply in this instance. There is no individual person who is identified in this image, and no claims are being made against them.

Do you also object to this image's use in the page Identity politics#White identity politics or on the main Proud Boys page about them using violence against BLM protestors?

Under your stated logic above, an image of Klansmen cannot be included in a page about the KKK because the specific hooded members in an image may not actually be Klansmen because no source verifies the identity of all of them or states they have committed a crime. BootsED (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

This is not "long-standing" text in any sense, as you said earlier. You added this on December 25, and I've contested this since January 11. It was added back by someone before I reverted it. The ONUS is on those seeking to include this image.

Your comments were an insufficient counter to my BLP concern. What about "all the other pages where this image appears and identifies them as Proud Boys" is not a valid argument. You made no address to the placement implying crimes by these individuals. R. G. Checkers ^talk 23:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Nor have you explained why this image is DUE in this article. The image has nothing to do with Trump and does not depict him. This a summary level article. R. G. Checkers ^talk 23:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The Proud Boys are a well documented violent hate-group and pro-Trump group. That is not an opinion.

The image shows members of the Proud Boys all wearing matching Proud Boys shirts and one holding a Proud Boy flag.

The Proud Boys in the image are wearing Trump MAGA hats.

The section clearly talks about how Trump has embraced militia movements and conspiracy theories, and how he is linked to an increase in hate crimes.

The caption mentions Trump's refusal to condemn the Proud Boys during his 2020 presidential debate and his comment "Proud Boys, stand back and stand by" which was attributed to increased group recruitment. The group literally made a new logo because of Trump's comments.

Trump pardoned all J6 rioters including Proud Boys, and specifically commuted the leader of the Proud Boys.

The inclusion is due. BootsED (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I did? There are no individuals in this image who are being accused of a crime. Two other editors agree with me on this point. You are the only one who has raised this objection so far. I think you are confusing WP:BLPCRIME with this image. BootsED (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Czarking0 did not exactly agree with you. He said "However, the section is violence and hate crimes so we should be cautious from a BLP standpoint". I'm not saying a direct accusation is being made, because it is not. I am suggesting that the context and placement in the "Violence and hate crime" subsection implies that these men are violent, hateful people, which is something that is not verifiable. Thus, this image and its placement violates the spirit of BLPCRIME by insinuating through context criminal activity. A similar thing is done, in regards to BLPCRIME, with mugshots. Mugshots are not to be the infobox photo of someone who has not been convicted of a crime because mugshots insinuate criminal activity, even though the caption of them may not say anything about being accused of a crime. Also, we do not need an image for every subsection of this article because it not meant to have a lot of detail, especially images that demonstrate something that is not Trump the man. R. G. Checkers ^talk 23:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The Proud Boys are a violent hate group, so even if, as you say, the article insinuates that these anonymous PB individuals are violent and hateful, I don't really see an issue here.

This picture is not a mugshot, and Trump's mugshot is not included here because of copyright reasons, not because of policy (otherwise it would definitely be on the page in the appropriate section). There is no rule that pictures on biographies have to include the individual in question. Several pictures on this page do not include Trump in them: see the picture of the "Trump Taj Mahal", his Hollywood Star, the J6 attack, or the classified documents found at his home, to name a few. BootsED (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

The caption does not say they committed crimes. However, the section is violence and hate crimes so we should be cautious from a BLP standpoint here. Overall, I do not think this subsection is doing a good job at whatever it is trying to do. Maybe that is another discussion. Czarking0 (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

The caption is reliably sourced and IMO would be better as text in the section, but how does WP:BLPCRIME apply in this case? What context - saying the Proud Boys are white supremacists? The people in the photograph are unnamed, masked individuals, possibly identifiable by friends and family and their fellow Proud Boys but otherwise anonymous. The photo of the MAGA-hatted Trump supporters in the Donald Trump#Political practice and rhetoric section doesn't add any more information to the article than this one. Space4TCatHerder🖖 23:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Unless there is something new to add, this will be my last comment on this matter unless an RfC comes along. I've articulated the BLP concern ad nauseam above. The photo of the MAGA hat people may should be removed because of WEIGHT, but that is not the topic of this discussion. But, most importantly, the MAGA hat photo doesn't have the criminal insinuation of the image under discussion. R. G. Checkers ^talk 00:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

"Clean out Gaza" proposal

The two sentences on his proposal to "clean out" Gaza Strip and forcibly displace Gazans to Jordan and Egypt, widely described as a proposal for ethnic cleansing, should be reinstated. The idea that it isn't forced displacement is spurious. --Tataral (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that RS indicate he is promoting ethnic cleansing in Gaza. However, the coverage here clearly would not pass a WP:10YEARTEST. Instead I suggest summarizing how (if) his second term's stance on Gaza has changed relative to the first term. Czarking0 (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

The sources say that forced moves would be illegal. None of them specifically say that this it's what Trump has currently proposed, because while that might be what he's dog whistling for, it's not what he actually said. Golikom (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

As with before, if specific wording is the issue, I'm not sure why blanket reverts are particularly helpful. He is of course dog whistling it, so the wording should be delicate and clear. Trump made no specific suggestions other than the vague idea to "clean out" the Gaza Strip, which has been widely interpreted as suggesting policy that potentially violates the Geneva Conventions. I'm happy to reword it on behalf of Tataral if we can conclude as such? FBryz (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, feel free to reword. The thing here is that "cleaning out" an entire population of millions is, by definition, forced displacement, as defined by UNHCR as displacement "as a result of persecution, conflict, generalized violence, or human rights violations", regardless of the rhetoric politicians use when proposing it. --Tataral (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, he's said it now. Today Donald Trump:

1. Said that Palestinians in Gaza have no real choice but to leave.

2. Said that the United States will "take over" Gaza.

3. Said, when asked if that meant sending U.S. troops to Gaza, that the U.S. would do whatever is "necessary".

Trump suggests permanently displacing Palestinians from Gaza | Reuters

Trump won't rule out deploying troops to support rebuilding Gaza, sees 'long-term' U.S. ownership (Los Angeles Times on MSN) NME Frigate (talk) 01:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

You can mention it, but I would put it in the relevant child article first before adding it to this page. Time will tell how important it is. BootsED (talk) 15:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there a "constitutional crisis"?

I'm seeing that phrase used more and more often over the past few days in regard to Donald Trump's second presidency. Admittedly it's often being used by critics of Trump, but this criticism is being reported in mainstream outlets and may be worth citing here. Here are some examples:

1. "Trump makes moves to expand his power, sparking chaos and a possible constitutional crisis" (Jan. 29).

source: Trump makes moves to expand his power, sparking chaos and a possible constitutional crisis | AP News

Excerpt: "Legal experts noted the president is explicitly forbidden from cutting off spending for programs that Congress has approved. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to appropriate money and requires the executive to pay it out. A 50-year-old law known as the Impoundment Control Act makes that explicit by prohibiting the president from halting payments on grants or other programs approved by Congress."

2. "Finally, a Democrat screams, ‘This is a Constitutional crisis’ created by billionaires" (Feb. 3).

source: Finally, a Democrat screams, ‘This is a Constitutional crisis’ created by billionaires - nj.com

Excerpt: "'Let's not pull any punches about why this is happening. Elon Musk makes billions off of his business with China. And China is cheering at this action today. There is no question that the billionaire class trying to take over our government right now is doing it based on self-interest,' [Sen. Chris] Murphy [of New Jersey] said at a press conference on Monday."

3. "What we have learned from Donald Trump's first constitutional crisis. Five lessons from the debacle the president has sparked by trying to freeze federal and foreign aid" (Feb. 3)

source: What we have learned from Donald Trump’s first constitutional crisis (Financial Times)

Excerpt: "But last week, Trump’s order to have the White House Office of Management and Budget 'temporarily pause' grants, loans and federal financial assistance programmes to ensure they aligned with the president’s priorities sparked an immediate — and successful — response from Democrats. The move, which most likely violated a law preventing presidents from blocking funding that has already been authorised by Congress, would have affected things that really touch average people’s lives: kindergarten programmes, veteran’s benefits, workforce training, rural broadband access, etc."

https://www.ft.com/content/37a7a038-bbc5-400d-acf7-33da789346ee

Even commentators whose politics lean right and who support making significant cuts to federal expenditures, like Brian Riedl of the Manhattan Institute and Alan Cole of the Tax Foundation, are using the term "constitutional crisis" to describe what's currently underway:

Cole: "I don't mind cutting USAID significantly, but ... focus on it is a missed opportunity to look for more impactful fiscal prudence measures in larger budget items [and] the process for it is a genuine constitutional crisis. Pass a law!"

source: https://x.com/AlanMCole/status/1886441116230144355

Riedl: "It is absolutely a constitutional crisis. The president has zero legal authority to 'shut down,' defund, or otherwise cripple a $50 billion agency. Audit it, identify unnecessary expenditures, draft reform or rescission proposals, and then go to Congress to PASS A LAW."

source: https://x.com/Brian_Riedl/status/1886447518302560351

I understand concerns about recentism and the fact that news about Trump moves too quickly to keep up with (so by the time everyone agrees there was a constitutional crisis, it may have been resolved), and I understand if there's a preference to wait for more sources before using what may seem like loaded language. (Another word that's being used, by the way, although not yet in as many mainstream sources, is "coup," mainly in relation to Elon Musk's team taking control of servers they may have no legal right to access.) If the phrase is to be used, it would probably fit best in the section Second presidency > Federal bureaucracy.

NME Frigate (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Not yet. Some are saying it is, or could be, or will be. But it's not (yet) a widely used, uncontested label among RS. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

One correction to what I wrote above: Chris Murphy is a U.S. Senator from Connecticut not New Jersey. NME Frigate (talk) 05:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure if a President claiming a power he may not have is enough to constitute Revangarde568 (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Is he only claiming it? Or is he acting on it? His employee, Elon Musk, has announced that the executive branch is in the midst of several actions that clearly violate the Constitution. NME Frigate (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

1. says possible crisis which to me means WP should not say that there is a crisis. I look to WP:CRYSTALBALL for how the possible should be covered
2. I don't think should be given weight. This is statements from an opposition party politician
3. Basically says there would have been one or more likely could be one. This is similar to my first point
4. I wish you would add a number point to your post as it is misleading the way it currently is. Twitter is not RS so I don't think these should be given weight

Czarking0 (talk) 23:40, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

There are many sources that describe Trump's actions as breaking federal law and the Constitution, but there is not a "constitutional crisis" as of this date per most sources. Trump's actions that break the Constitution have been halted so far, so he did attempt to violate the Constitution, but there is not a "crisis" as such attempts have been stalled for the time being. BootsED (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

USAID is being shut down without Congressional approval. He can't do that. That's illegal and unconstitutional. The "crisis" ends when USAID is restored. NME Frigate (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Playing devil's advocate here, congressional legislation only says that there needs to be an agency to handle foreign aid, not that USAID needs to be that agency. Regardless, we can't act on your comment or mine here because WP:NOR is policy. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the careful response.

(I will note that in the past few days, at least one department of the United States government has said that, henceforth, all its official announcements will be made exclusively on Twitter (X). How should Wikipedia address that point, if statements on X are not a reliable source?) NME Frigate (talk) 00:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

How wikipedia in general should address that point is not a subject for this talk page. You can address that at the village pump Czarking0 (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll note one more piece:

5. The Constitutional Crisis Is Here - The Atlantic ("The Constitutional Crisis Is Here. If Congress won’t stop Donald Trump and Elon Musk from arrogating its power over federal spending, who will?") NME Frigate (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Short description

In default view, a user will only see a short description in the search bar. In this way, an SD is used to disambiguate between similarly-titled articles in searches. It is important that the entire SD be visible, when possible.

The current SD for this article is rendered as

President of the United States (2017–2021, 2025–pre...

getting cut off. WP:ACRO lists "US" as a valid abbreviation for "United States". A shorter SD that doesn't get cut off would be

US president (2017–2021, 2025–present)

or if that is hopelessly informal,

President of the US (2017–2021, 2025–present)

Wizmut (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@Thrakkx Curious to hear your input on how to trim the character count. Wizmut (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

The guidelines for short descriptions don’t set a hard rule on length. At 56 characters (and at 53 when "present" is replaced with the end year of his term), the short description here falls within the implied acceptable range, between 40 and 60. Now on the dates. Since this is a biography page and the subject's period in office is most important, the dates should be included. But the guideline's examples don't help us, since the period in office isn't continuous. Grover Cleveland's short description is "President of the United States (1885–1889, 1893–1897)", which I feel is an acceptable way to try to meet the spirit of the guideline. The fact that it is partially cut off on certain views isn't a compelling argument to make it shorter, in my opinion. There are plenty of articles whose short descriptions are appropriately short but are cut off in the search view. It makes sense that this article should match the style of all the other presidents, which use the full title of the office, and match the style of Cleveland on the dates. Thrakkx (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

To give an example of other articles whose short descriptions are cut off: the short description of Stephen Harper is cut off to "Prime Minister of Canada from 2006 to 20…" (which follows the short description guidelines to the letter) and I don't feel it would be appropriate to shorten "Prime Minister" to "PM" or other shorthands in order to remedy something that isn't really a problem. Thrakkx (talk) 19:34, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Is there a place where a non-logged in user would see the full description?

The Cleveland and Harper SDs don't get cut off on my screen. Wizmut (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Mobile screens such as iPhones (which I use) cuts off everything after 50 characters if there is a header/infobox image. Thrakkx (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Good to know. On Android it just goes to the next line, seemingly it will show everything. Wizmut (talk) 20:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

It's content being shown to users, not displaying correctly. I think that's a problem. The SD shows correctly if you click edit and look at the wikitext, but this is not how people actually view the site. Wizmut (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't know what screen you use then because desktop users, not logged in (which is the majority of readers), don't see any short descriptions at all. Mobile users, regardless of whether there is an account logged in, see short descriptions in full when viewing an article, and the description even falls onto new lines when it's long. Your description doesn't match that. Thrakkx (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I just dusted off Edge and opened it to a wikipedia page and searched for Donald Trump. The SD shows up in the search bar. It shows one more letter than Firefox, but still gets cut off.

On my Android phone, I am not logged in, and the SD does not show up once the article loads. As I said before it shows everything in the search bar, even the SD of Martin Boonzaayer or Velopharyngeal consonant.

I think, to the extent we disagree on this topic, a lot of the difference may be influenced by our devices. :) Wizmut (talk) 20:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Note that the first proposal should perhaps be "US president (2017–2021, 2025–present)" (with a lowercase "p") because "US president" is a modified title. –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 19:31, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

 Fixed thanks Wizmut (talk) 19:49, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a real problem here. Even cut off, what remains is more than enough for anyone to determine whether this is the article that they are looking for. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Due weight in first presidency section

This article, as many have noted, is currently too long. And a big part of that is the "first presidency" section, which I believe doesn't follow WP:DUEWEIGHT and WP:SUMSTYLE. In theory, such a high-level article should mainly contain very broad and concise summaries. This is shown in the "first presidency" section, where only four paragraphs are devoted to his domestic policy and two to his foreign policy. However, I believe these principles are broken in the "Immigration" section (seven paragraphs) and the three sections related to investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 election (six paragraphs in all). I have trouble seeing how giving such extreme weight to those two topics isn't UNDUE in comparison to the rest of its article and its needs. I'd propose trimming them dramatically, and can work on an example if people want to see what it could look like, but I'd like to seek consensus first. DecafPotato (talk) 07:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

As a regular rule of thumb, Wikipiedia presidency articles limit the size of subsections to 2-3 paragraphs or less whenever there is a main article for the material being covered. This is done to avoid the reduplication of the same material around Wikipedia as opposed to keeping everything in one place and not covering the same material in different articles. The current Trump article in the First Presidency section seems to bypass this approach in at least two of the sections: the one on Immigration, and the other on Investigations which itself appears to have 6 further paragraphs as DecafPotato points out. Both Immigration and Investigations in the First Presidency section have their own fully developed articles on Wikipedia, and there does not appear to be a reason to reduplicate the material here on the Trump article. Should those sections be summarized and reduced in size to 2-3 paragraphs each without the multiple subsections? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Agree in principle. Way too much detail on presidency in this biography, for way too long. I don't care that other presidential BLPs have similar detail on presidencies. Some of them are just wrong in my opinion, and not all consistency is good consistency. To my knowledge, none of those former presidents have a library of Wikipedia articles approaching the size of Trump's. And none of them are Trump and we should avoid one-size-fits-all. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Trim section in First Presidency

@ErnestKrause and @Mandruss — I've made User:DecafPotato/Trump trim draft to show what I think the trim of the first-presidency "Immigration" and "Investigations" sections could look like. You could definitely cut a lot more but I didn't want to make too dramatic of a change. Is there any objections to putting this in the article? DecafPotato (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

It looks like DecafPotato is very close to a useful trim to these two sections on "Immigration" and "Investigations". It might be worth even trimming further; for the "Immigration" section I'm seeing no reason not to go to a 2 paragraph version by joining the first two paragraphs together and the last two paragraphs together, and then trimming some of the numbers and statistics data which duplicates what is already shown in the main article links. For the "Investigations" sections, basically the same approach: to first remove the subsection division for Russia and then trim the Russian paragraphs into a single paragraph. Then combine that single Russian paragraph into a merge of the 2 paragraphs at the top of the section into one section; a two paragraph version results with the main article links pulled up to the top of the section. DecafPotato's version looks very good thus far and I'm pretty much on board for bringing it into the main space. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause — I've implemented your suggestions to cut it down more. Let me know if you have any issue with the current wording, but I'll put this into main space now. DecafPotato (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Responding to ping. Now you're in the area that is not my forte. I know trimming is needed, but I don't know how to do it. So I leave that to others. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm late but I fully support trimming the article down. To be honest, when another article exists, there's no reason to have more than one paragraph or two summarizing the highest level points here. The problem is that for good things Trump did or had a part in (like the discussion re: Abraham Accords), people want to try and hide them in sub articles. But for anything even slightly negative he did, there's a quick consensus to include it in his main article, because obviously this is the only article a significant majority of people will read about him. It's a NPOV issue, but there's no easy solution since it takes significant energy (see: the Abraham Accords discussion) to actually ensure summary style is being followed. Ultimately, trimming is ideal at this point - basically, blow it up and start over, and everyone involved push back more against listing any "specifics" at this article unless they are truly insanely important. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

A consensus item would help considerably in that effort, if this could be codified. We've found that vague consensuses aren't very effective. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

I'd agree that basically the whole article needs to be trimmed. Wikipedia has a standalone article for basically everything that Donald Trump has ever done and even if I may disagree with that fact we should make use of it in making this article as concise as possible. WP:SUMSTYLE exists for a reason. DecafPotato (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Some of us have been saying similar things for, I don't know, 6 or 8 years. It's gratifying to finally see some real support. Per #Tracking article size, the article is down 18% since the election, but that's not enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Trim section on Inter-presidency

Here is a condensed version for the 4 Legal issues subsections there being combined into 2 paragraphs for purposes of replacing those four subsection. Then add the main article links at the top and condense the whole section further. This is a first pass for the condensed version for now:

On December 19, 2022, the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack recommended criminal charges against Trump for obstructing an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, and inciting or assisting an insurrection. In August 2023, a Fulton County, Georgia, grand jury indicted Trump on 13 charges, including racketeering, for his efforts to subvert the election outcome in Georgia. Between 2006 and 2007, Trump allegedly had affairs with Playboy model Karen McDougal and adult film actress Stormy Daniels. During the 2016 election, Michael Cohen arranged payments to them in exchange for their continued silence: for this he pleaded guilty to breaking campaign finance laws in 2018. Despite Trump's denial of falsifying records, evidence that he reimbursed Cohen for the payments in 2017 led to investigations, and finally a conviction in May 2024 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to book the hush money payments to Daniels as business expenses, in an attempt to influence the 2016 election.

In 2019, journalist E. Jean Carroll accused Trump of raping her in the mid-1990s and sued him for defamation over his denial. In September 2022, another civil lawsuit was filed against Trump, this time by the attorney general of New York. In January 2022, the National Archives and Records Administration retrieved 15 boxes of documents Trump had taken to Mar-a-Lago after leaving the White House, some of which were classified. In the ensuing Justice Department investigation, Justice Department Officials retrieved more classified documents from Trump's lawyers. On August 8, 2022, FBI agents searched Mar-a-Lago for illegally held documents, including those in breach of the Espionage Act, collecting 11 sets of classified documents, some marked top secret. The Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity and Trump's re-election appeared to set aside prosecution of many of the cases against him. In July 2024, judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the classified documents case, ruling that it was brought unconstitutionally. Similarly, after Trump's re-election, both the 2020 election case and the classified documents case were dismissed without prejudice due to Justice Department policy against prosecuting sitting presidents.

Does this draft provide a useful condense of those 4 subsections. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I do feel like I get whiplash reading it, I would be interested in hearing from others. The Stormy Daniels stuff is insufficiently summarised. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I've added some for the Stormy Daniels material; the entire condense is now down to 2 paragraphs for all 4 subsections. You can feel free to adjust and adapt this first draft as needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

DecafPotato and Berchanhimez: I've placed above a first draft of a trimmed section for the Inter-presidency section, based upon the comments and successful edits you made (DecafPotato) for the First Presendency section. There seems a chance that something similar to what you did in First Presidency section might work in the Inter-presidency section as well. Does it looks like a possible direction to take to further trim the article? ErnestKrause (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: I'd add a bit more information about how the cases were set aside; Trump v. U.S., Cannon's dismissal, dismissal without prejudice, and the unconditional discharge are all worth mentioning, even if pretty briefly. I think currently it might be a bit confusing for readers to see all of these cases with no explanation about how they ended. But for the most part I really like this — great job! DecafPotato (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

DecafPotato: I've taken up your comments and done a small addition to the end of the second paragraph. Is it getting closer. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:08, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

ErnestKrause: Yeah, I think that's great. Here's my version, basically the same as what you wrote but just a little bit shorter.

The Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity and Trump's re-election appeared to set aside prosecution of many of the cases against him.[1] In July 2024, judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the classified documents case, ruling that it was brought unconstitutionally.[2] Similarly, after Trump's re-election, both the 2020 election case and the classified documents case were dismissed without prejudice due to Justice Department policy against prosecuting sitting presidents.[3][4]

If you have any changes you want to make to that part go ahead, but I think if we add this to the rest of what you've written it's ready to be added to the article. DecafPotato (talk) 21:14, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

DecafPotato: That's looks like a good trim to those sentences which I've now added to the two paragraph summary above. I'm also in agreement that with your improvement it means its ready to be added to the article at this time. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Before the trim

Between presidencies (2021–2025) See also: Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump and Legal affairs of Donald Trump as president Upon leaving the White House, Trump began living at his Mar-a-Lago club, establishing an office there as provided for by the Former Presidents Act. Trump's continuing false claims concerning the 2020 election were commonly referred to as the "big lie" by his critics, although in May 2021, with his supporters he began using the term to refer to the election itself. The Republican Party used his election narrative to justify imposing new voting restrictions in its favor. As of July 2022, he continued to pressure state legislators to overturn the election. Unlike other former presidents, Trump continued to dominate his party; a 2022 profile in The New York Times described him as a modern party boss. He continued fundraising, raising a war chest containing more than twice that of the Republican Party, and profited from fundraisers many Republican candidates held at Mar-a-Lago. Much of his focus was on party governance and installing in key posts officials loyal to him. In the 2022 midterm elections, he endorsed over 200 candidates for various offices. In February 2021, Trump registered a new company, Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG), for providing "social networking services" to U.S. customers. In March 2024, TMTG merged with special-purpose acquisition company Digital World Acquisition and became a public company. In February 2022, TMTG launched Truth Social, a social media platform. Legal issues Classified documents Further information: Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (classified documents case) Classified intelligence material found during search of Mar-a-Lago In January 2022, the National Archives and Records Administration retrieved 15 boxes of documents Trump had taken to Mar-a-Lago after leaving the White House, some of which were classified. In the ensuing Justice Department investigation, Justice Department Officials retrieved more classified documents from Trump's lawyers. On August 8, 2022, FBI agents searched Mar-a-Lago for illegally held documents, including those in breach of the Espionage Act, collecting 11 sets of classified documents, some marked top secret. In November 2022, federal prosecutor Jack Smith was appointed to take over the investigation, which, in June 2023, resulted in a federal grand jury indicting Trump on 31 counts of "willfully retaining national defense information" under the Espionage Act, among other charges. Trump pleaded not guilty. After delays, the assigned judge, Aileen Cannon, dismissed the case on July 15, 2024, ruling Smith's appointment was unconstitutional. Multiple outlets highlighted that Cannon had been appointed by Trump. 2020 election Main articles: United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack, Georgia election racketeering prosecution, and Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case) On December 19, 2022, the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack recommended criminal charges against Trump for obstructing an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, and inciting or assisting an insurrection. In August 2023, a Fulton County, Georgia, grand jury indicted Trump on 13 charges, including racketeering, for his efforts to subvert the election outcome in Georgia. He surrendered, was processed at Fulton County Jail, and was released on bail. He pleaded not guilty. In March 2024, the judge dismissed three of the 13 charges. In August 2023, a federal grand jury indicted Trump for his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results. He was charged with conspiring to defraud the U.S., obstruct the certification of the Electoral College vote, and deprive voters of the right to have their votes counted, and obstructing an official proceeding. He pleaded not guilty. On November 25, the judge dismissed the case without prejudice after the prosecution filed a motion to dismiss citing Department of Justice policy. The next day, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dropped Trump from the appeal on the classified documents case. In January 2025, the Justice Department released the special counsel's report, which found that Trump engaged in an "unprecedented criminal effort" to overturn the 2020 election. 2016 campaign fraud case Main articles: Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York and Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal See also: Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump § Payments related to alleged affairs, and Karen McDougal § Alleged affair with Donald Trump Between 2006 and 2007, Trump allegedly had affairs with Playboy model Karen McDougal and adult film actress Stormy Daniels. During the 2016 election, Michael Cohen arranged payments to them in exchange for their continued silence: for this he pleaded guilty to breaking campaign finance laws in 2018. Cohen said he arranged these at Trump's direction to influence the election. Despite Trump's denial of falsifying records, evidence that he reimbursed Cohen for the payments in 2017 led to investigations. Trump was convicted in May 2024 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to book the hush money payments to Daniels as business expenses, in an attempt to influence the 2016 election. On January 10, 2025, Trump was sentenced to unconditional discharge, upholding the felony conviction without imposing further punishment. With this, he became the first U.S. president or president-elect to be a felon. Civil lawsuits Main articles: E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump and New York business fraud lawsuit against the Trump Organization In 2019, journalist E. Jean Carroll accused Trump of raping her in the mid-1990s and sued him for defamation ("Carroll I") over his denial. In September 2022, another civil lawsuit was filed against Trump, this time by the attorney general of New York. The lawsuit accused Trump, three of his children and the Trump Organization of inflating the organization's net worth to gain an advantage from lenders and banks. Later that year, Carroll sued Trump again over defamation for comments made since the filing of "Carroll I" and added a battery charge ("Carroll II"), the jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation in that case, ordering him to pay $5 million. After Trump contested whether the jury had found him liable for rape and countersued Carroll for defamation, the judge in the two cases ruled against him, finding the rape accusation "substantially true". Trump appealed both decisions. In January 2024, the jury in "Carroll I" found against Trump, ordering him to pay $83.3 million in damages. The next month, Trump was found liable for conspiring to manipulate his net worth and ordered to pay $350 million plus interest, he and his sons, Donald Jr. and Eric, were barred from serving in senior positions in New York businesses, and an independent monitor installed in the Trump Organization was extended for three years. In December, the appeals court in "Carroll II" upheld the jury's finding and the $5 million award. As of December 2024, Trump faced multiple civil lawsuits at the trial level.

After

Between presidencies (2021–2025) Main articles: Georgia election racketeering prosecution, Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (election obstruction case), Federal prosecution of Donald Trump (classified documents case), Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York, and E. Jean Carroll v. Donald J. Trump See also: Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump and Legal affairs of Donald Trump as president Upon leaving the White House, Trump began living at his Mar-a-Lago club, establishing an office there as provided for by the Former Presidents Act. Trump's continuing false claims concerning the 2020 election were commonly referred to as the "big lie" by his critics, although in May 2021, with his supporters he began using the term to refer to the election itself. The Republican Party used his election narrative to justify imposing new voting restrictions in its favor. As of July 2022, he continued to pressure state legislators to overturn the election. Unlike other former presidents, Trump continued to dominate his party; a 2022 profile in The New York Times described him as a modern party boss. He continued fundraising, raising a war chest containing more than twice that of the Republican Party, and profited from fundraisers many Republican candidates held at Mar-a-Lago. Much of his focus was on party governance and installing in key posts officials loyal to him. In the 2022 midterm elections, he endorsed over 200 candidates for various offices. In February 2021, Trump registered a new company, Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG), for providing "social networking services" to U.S. customers. In March 2024, TMTG merged with special-purpose acquisition company Digital World Acquisition and became a public company. In February 2022, TMTG launched Truth Social, a social media platform. On December 19, 2022, the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack recommended criminal charges against Trump for obstructing an official proceeding, conspiracy to defraud the United States, and inciting or assisting an insurrection. In August 2023, a Fulton County, Georgia, grand jury indicted Trump on 13 charges, including racketeering, for his efforts to subvert the election outcome in Georgia. Between 2006 and 2007, Trump allegedly had affairs with Playboy model Karen McDougal and adult film actress Stormy Daniels. During the 2016 election, Michael Cohen arranged payments to them in exchange for their continued silence: for this he pleaded guilty to breaking campaign finance laws in 2018. Despite Trump's denial of falsifying records, evidence that he reimbursed Cohen for the payments in 2017 led to investigations, and finally a conviction in May 2024 on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to book the hush money payments to Daniels as business expenses, in an attempt to influence the 2016 election. In 2019, journalist E. Jean Carroll accused Trump of raping her in the mid-1990s and sued him for defamation over his denial. In September 2022, another civil lawsuit was filed against Trump, this time by the attorney general of New York. In January 2022, the National Archives and Records Administration retrieved 15 boxes of documents Trump had taken to Mar-a-Lago after leaving the White House, some of which were classified. In the ensuing Justice Department investigation, Justice Department Officials retrieved more classified documents from Trump's lawyers. On August 8, 2022, FBI agents searched Mar-a-Lago for illegally held documents, including those in breach of the Espionage Act, collecting 11 sets of classified documents, some marked top secret. The Supreme Court's ruling on presidential immunity and Trump's re-election appeared to set aside prosecution of many of the cases against him. In July 2024, judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the classified documents case, ruling that it was brought unconstitutionally. Similarly, after Trump's re-election, both the 2020 election case and the classified documents case were dismissed without prejudice due to Justice Department policy against prosecuting sitting presidents.

I challenged the bold edit. Two people agreeing on it after a discussion that lasted less than two days does not make a consensus. I'll follow up on this later. Space4TCatHerder🖖 14:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

What exactly is the nature of your objection? Reverting and saying you'll 'follow up on this later' is not exactly best practice. Riposte97 (talk) 14:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

It's a bold edit that was challenged. It's up to the bold editor to make the case for the massive removal of long-standing material. It'll take me a while to go through all the changes. My first impression:

• Removing the subheadings and arranging the text in three long paragraphs: big walls of text without structure. Who's going to want to read that?
• Mar-a-Lago documents section.

  

  Classified intelligence material found during search of Mar-a-Lago

  In January 2022, the National Archives and Records Administration retrieved 15 boxes of documents Trump had taken to Mar-a-Lago after leaving the White House, some of which were classified.[8] In the ensuing Justice Department investigation, Justice Department Officials retrieved more classified documents from Trump's lawyers.[8] On August 8, 2022, FBI agents searched Mar-a-Lago for illegally held documents, including those in breach of the Espionage Act, collecting 11 sets of classified documents, some marked top secret.[9][10] In November 2022, federal prosecutor Jack Smith was appointed to take over the investigation, which, in June 2023, resulted in a federal grand jury indicting Trump on 31 counts of "willfully retaining national defense information" under the Espionage Act, among other charges.[8][25][26] Trump pleaded not guilty.[27] After delays, the assigned judge, Aileen Cannon, dismissed the case on July 15, 2024, ruling Smith's appointment was unconstitutional.[12] Multiple outlets highlighted that Cannon had been appointed by Trump.[12][28]

The trim removed the iconic picture of classified intelligence material stored at Mar-a-Lago and the three sentences left over after the culling (In September 2022, another civil lawsuit was filed against Trump, this time by the attorney general of New York. In January 2022, the National Archives and Records Administration retrieved 15 boxes of documents Trump had taken to Mar-a-Lago after leaving the White House, some of which were classified.[8] In the ensuing Justice Department investigation, Justice Department Officials retrieved more classified documents from Trump's lawyers.[8] On August 8, 2022, FBI agents searched Mar-a-Lago for illegally held documents, including those in breach of the Espionage Act, collecting 11 sets of classified documents, some marked top secret.[9][10]) ended up in a sequence of sentences beginning with E. Jean Carroll accusing and suing Trump (I vaguely remember a civil trial and a multi-million-dollar sentence but, hey, what do I know).

Following the three sentences on the classified documents case is a newly added sentence on how the SC's presidential immunity ruling "appeared to set aside prosecution of many of the cases against thim". It fails verification — the cited sources is about the hush money case and mentions the SC only in one sentence: "If he loses the appeal, the matter could wind its way to the U.S. Supreme Court."

Then we jump back to the classified documents with the sentence that Judge Cannon dismissed the classified documents case, ruling that it was brought unconstitutionally — misleading simplification.

I haven't finished reviewing the before and after versions. Space4TCatHerder🖖 15:59, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The failed verification on the SC ruling isn't a huge deal; it can be reworded to better match the sources and other sources (including this one and I'm sure many others) better reflect what the sentence said. The image removal similarly isn't a case against the trim, because it can just be added back (no one ever opposed keeping it). The same goes for the "three long paragraphs" that "no one wants to read." If your opposition is to the structure, your keyboard comes with an Enter key that is made for making paragraphs shorter and easier on the eyes. DecafPotato (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I have to say I’m with my tuberous friend on this one. Although I’m not sure the image is 'iconic', that can be argued about separately. The one point you may have is that the Carroll verdict should be included - I think that and the appeal are relevant. Nevertheless, I support making the change to the next text, and potentially making those tweaks afterwards. I see consensus here for the change. Riposte97 (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Agree, this seems like a net improvement. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I've restored the trim, but with four slightly shorter paragraphs instead of three longer ones, more information on the Carroll suit, and the Mar-a-Lago classified documents image restored. Hopefully that satisfies everyone's requests. DecafPotato (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

There are more factual errors. I've started correcting them, but it's a slog. We've had an unwritten agreement on this page that people wouldn't make massive trims or reorganizations but do it piecemeal. But I guess that's all gone out the window now. Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Trim sections on Impeachments

From the discussion above, it might be useful to consider a trim to the current four paragraph version of the two Impeachment sections which follow one another in the First presidency section. It seems that 4 paragraphs may be a little long and could be combined into a single paragraph since both Impeachments did not move forward. Then they could be merged into a single section called "First and Second Impeachments", for a significant space trim. Pinging DecafPotato and Riposte97 if this might be useful to look at. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

My view is that if it looks like it can be shortened, then it should be. I don't know if I'll have the time to help do it for this section but I definitely support consolidating into one short paragraph. DecafPotato (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. I've made deep cuts. There was plenty there that was no longer justifiable. Riposte97 (talk) 09:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Trim sections on Political practice and rhetoric

From previous discussion above, it appears that it might be useful to trim the current large section with its 6 subsections in "Political practice and rhetoric" which appears towards the end of the article. Wikipedia already has an article on the Rhetoric of Donald Trump, and these 6 sections in the main Trump biography article here appear to reduplicate much of the material which is already available in the Rhetoric of Donald Trump article. It seems that these 6 subsections could all be summarized into a single paragraph and added to the one paragraph preface already there which starts this section; then all of the links and redirects can be collected and put at the top of the section, for a significant space trim. Pinging DecafPotato and Riposte97 if this might be useful to look at for a useful space trim. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Canvassing much? Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Canvassing much? All Talk page editors invited. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

(All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others and get pinged?) What exactly are you proposing to cut, and how are you proposing to put all of the links and redirects — three main articles, five "further reading", and numerous inline Wikilinks — at the top of the section? I just gave the section a quick read without looking at the cited sources, and that's Trump as he lives and breathes (and rants). Space4TCatHerder🖖 13:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia really need 6 large sections reduplicated here

It appears that one of the closing sections in the main article for "Trump Rhetoric and Politics" is including 6 large subsections which are being reduplicated in this article from the separate set of many sibling articles which already cover these topics on Wikipedia. It seems like it might be more useful to trim and combine all of the sections into one or two paragraphs and then add the redirects at the top of the section. This would substantially reduce the section size in the main article, and any reader interested in the details can link to any one of the full sized sub-articles which already exist on Wikipedia. Here is a first draft of the trimmed version of that large section near the bottom of the article on "Trump's Rhetoric and Political Positions" for comment by other Wikipedia editors:

Political practice and rhetoric

Main articles: False or misleading statements by Donald Trump and List of conspiracy theories promoted by Donald Trump

Further information: Trumpism, Political positions of Donald Trump, Rhetoric of Donald Trump, and Social media use by Donald Trump

See also: First presidency of Donald Trump § Relationship with the news media, and Personal and business legal affairs of Donald Trump

Beginning with his 2016 campaign, Trump's politics and rhetoric led to the creation of a political movement known as Trumpism. Trump's political positions are populist, more specifically described as right-wing populist. He helped bring far-right fringe ideas and organizations into the mainstream. Many of Trump's actions and rhetoric have been described as authoritarian and contributing to democratic backsliding. His political base has been compared to a cult of personality. Trump's rhetoric and actions inflame anger and exacerbate distrust through an "us" versus "them" narrative. Trump explicitly and routinely disparages racial, religious, and ethnic minorities, and scholars consistently find that racial animus regarding blacks, immigrants, and Muslims are the best predictors of support for Trump. Trump's rhetoric has been described as using fearmongering and demagogy. The alt-right movement coalesced around and supported his candidacy, due in part to its opposition to multiculturalism and immigration. He has a strong appeal to evangelical Christian voters and Christian nationalists, and his rallies take on the symbols, rhetoric and agenda of Christian nationalism.

Many of Trump's comments and actions have been described as racist. Trump has been identified as a key figure in increasing political violence in America, both for and against him. Before and throughout his presidency, Trump promoted numerous conspiracy theories, including Obama birtherism, the Clinton body count conspiracy theory, the conspiracy theory movement QAnon, the Global warming hoax theory, Trump Tower wiretapping allegations, that Osama bin Laden was alive and Obama and Biden had members of Navy SEAL Team 6 killed, and alleged Ukrainian interference in U.S. elections.As a candidate and as president, Trump frequently makes false statements in public remarks to an extent unprecedented in American politics. Trump's social media presence attracted worldwide attention after he joined Twitter in 2009. He tweeted frequently during his 2016 campaign and as president until Twitter banned him after the January 6 attack. In June 2017, the White House press secretary said that Trump's tweets were official presidential statements. After years of criticism for allowing Trump to post misinformation and falsehoods, Twitter began to tag some of his tweets with fact-checks in May 2020. In response, he tweeted that social media platforms "totally silence" conservatives and that he would "strongly regulate, or close them down". In the days after the storming of the Capitol, he was banned from Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and other platforms. The loss of his social media presence diminished his ability to shape events and prompted a dramatic decrease in the volume of misinformation shared on Twitter. Trump sought media attention throughout his career, sustaining a "love-hate" relationship with the press. In the 2016 campaign, he benefited from a record amount of free media coverage.

Possibly other editors can comment (QuicoleJR and Rollinginhisgrave) if it looks like this might be a useful trim to that large section and many subsections on Rhetoric and Politics in the current main Trump article. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: Perhaps. A rambling answer ahead. Apologies this isn't the answer you want, my impression of the section is dominated by how weak it is: to describe Trump's politics as "right-wing populist" when we have a whole page, Donald Trump and fascism, discussing one position (whether his political practice has an affinity with fascism) in another article (the split of only one position into a SAL without an equivalent page on Trump and populism, and much of the page functioning as evidence for such a position being a major failure of NPOVFORK), it's a failure of WP:YESPOV. The sourcing for "He helped bring far-right fringe ideas and organizations into the mainstream." remains inadequate. Some other applicable tags include for "described as racist".

On the summary, I think it's an immensely hard job you've undertaken. I think the extent of the significance of his social media use as "he tweeted a lot while president" is inadequate, it doesn't tell me why we're mentioning it. I organized material into a political practice section a few months ago, taking elements of the page and sorting them under a better organizational banner, but I didn't claim that it effectively summarized his political practice or that the most important things to his political practice were Social Media, Truthfulness, Links to violence and hate crimes etc. I think that was a bit more clear with the previous version, where it was split into sections. I do think the relationship with the media section could be more sophisticated, and I generally am of the opinion that his relationship with the media would merit a stand-alone article, although when I tried to do that I stopped after having issues around the relationship of such an article with Media career of Donald Trump. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Sources

Add another position to infobox

I’m not entirely sure how relevant this is, but given that Donald Trump was Co-Chairman of the New York Vietnam Veterans Memorial Commission, which was established by New York mayor Ed Koch in 1982 to finance the construction of the Veterans Memorial Plaza, it is a public service position that could be included in the infobox. Jasper Chu (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Doesn't justify infobox space. Debatable whether it warrants space in the body prose; I suspect not simply because of a shortage of RS coverage. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 05:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

RS coverage? Jasper Chu (talk) 06:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

RS = reliable sources. First paragraph at WP:NPOV:

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

At this article, "proportionate" to only a few reliable sources generally means omission; we simply don't have room for more. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 09:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I still think it would be misleading not to mention or include it, as the current content gives the impression he’s had no prior public experience, when in fact he did, which I feel is best mentioned or explained under Political career of Donald Trump. The co-chairmanship he was appointed to was under the NY city government after all under Ed Koch. Jasper Chu (talk) 14:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Perhaps this prior public experience is not worth noting in a space-constrained, one-page biography of a 78-year life. I'm going with that. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 15:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

He was named to this commission, but what did this experience actually consist of? What did he, specifically, and the commission as a whole do? Or was he simply a well known figure (with lots of money of his own and lots of friends and associates with money) who was picked simply because he could draw attention (and dollars) to the project just by having his name mentioned? Show us sources that are more than a list of names. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Exclude, as the infobox is long enough. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Exclude, not noteworthy. The NYC Parks & Recreation webpage of the memorial doesn't mention Trump. He's mentioned in this 1984 NYT article, and he doesn't appear to have been popular with the other members of the commission or particularly involved in the commission's work. (The direct link to page 8 of the archived version may take a couple of minutes to open.) Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Supersede consensus item 30 and item 51?

The original sentence was "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racially charged, racist, or misogynistic."

I think this is outdated, and should be simplified as "He has made racist and misogynistic comments and actions." This can neatly be merged in the next sentence. Kenneth Kho (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I do not see a need for any change. Slatersteven (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain what outdated it? Mere passage of time is not enough. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The child article states that both the scholars and the public have viewed his comments and actions as such, I don't think we need to put weasel words in the lead anymore. Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah, understood now. I'm persuaded unless somebody un-persuades me. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Which ones are the weasel words in that sentence? Space4TCatHerder🖖 16:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Were actions "made" or "taken"? –Gluonz ^{talk contribs} 16:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, it can be reworded as "made comments and took actions that are racist and misogynistic." Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

By changing the wording. We'd be suggesting that everybody considers his comments to be racially charged, racist & misogynistic. We don't have proof that everybody does. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

We don't have proof that everybody considers his statements to be false or misleading either, that does not stop us from calling a spade a spade in the next sentence. Kenneth Kho (talk) 16:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll have to oppose your proposed changes. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The current sentence does not say "everybody". It does say that Trump made many comments that were characterized to be racist etc., and the body has numerous RS to back that up. You're proposing to tone it down (whitewash?) to say, in effect, he made the occasional racist and misogynistic comment (subtext "and who hasn't in an unguarded moment"?). You'd also have to add a verb to go with actions. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The word "many" can be retained, but I would prefer merging this sentence with the next, which said "to an unprecedented degree". Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't see how that's the case. I see that we're moving from discussing what his actions are perceived as, to making a discrete comment on the nature of his actions and comments. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I believe this discussion resulted consensus to remove "racially charged" for being just being a nice way to say "racist" and a descriptor that isn't present in the article body at all. So my preferred version of the sentence is "Many of his comments and actions have been characterized as racist or misogynistic."

I don't like the comparison to the article saying that he has said false or misleading things. I think it's fine to wikivoice Trump saying false things because "Trump says this --> the reliably-sourced truth is actually the opposite --> RSes make connection that Trump said a falsehood when he said that" is verifiable and true to the standards required of a BLP. Whereas something being racist or misogynistic will almost always have some element of subjectivity and so requires a much higher bar when wikivoicing in a BLP. DecafPotato (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I glanced at it before starting this discussion and saw that it appeared to gain traction, but did not look closely on whether it achieved consensus or not. Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this, per my argument in the linked discussion. The "racially charged" descriptor has since been removed from the body entirely, so there is little justification to have it in the lead. Just "racist or misogynistic" is sufficient. — Goszei (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Fine with removing 'racially charged' but insist we retain 'characterised as'. He has never ceded that his comments are racist, and reasonable minds can differ. Therefore, attribution required. Riposte97 (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Piped link

Kenneth Kho, please remove the link you added here. It's a violation of consensus 30 and 60 and MOS:OVERLINK. Space4TCatHerder🖖 17:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

We're disagreeing a lot, lately. Unless the #30 discussion specifically considered links and decided against them, this edit does not violate it. And it's well past time for us to revisit #60 for clarification of its intent. Not here. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that it violates consensus 30 or 60 or that it is WP:OVERLINK. I think this is a minor point subject to editorial discretion, so I'll just sit for a few days observing and see where the WP:EDITCON ends up. Kenneth Kho (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@Kenneth Kho:, remove the link, until there's a consensus to add it. GoodDay (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

No, I think somebody needs to challenge by reversion, per the R in BRD. They just need to put a reason for challenge in their edit summary, and "no consensus" is not a valid reason. As I indicated above, I oppose challenge per #30 or #60. I don't think this edit is prohibited by #30 or #60. Therefore, in my view, it's a valid BOLD.

This probably seems so nitpicky, but I think we're better off in the long run firming up the BRD process. It would simplify things. No better time to start than now. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC) Edited 19:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck - I would've if I could've. But I can't until tomorrow coz of 3RR. Disagree on 30 and 60 but, aside from that, there's still MOS:OVERLINK. Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the article link, per WP:BRD. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Reverted.[5] ―Mandruss ☎ 19:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Space4TCatHerder🖖 19:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Must learn to do emojis. Emoticons are so last decade. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

WP doesn't think there's a difference. Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Kenneth Kho's BOLD now challenged with a proper rationale.[6] Proceed to the D in BRD. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I linked it to section in the same article because it appears to be practiced a few times in this article, but I'm cool with linking it to a child article such as Racial views of Donald Trump and Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations. Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose per challenger Shibbolethink. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

And we're back to ye olde "section links in the lead must not look like piped links to other articles" discussion . Space4TCatHerder🖖 20:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Add a paragraph to the lead about his 2nd term?

I wrote this, but then edit conflicted with someone:

Trump began his second presidency by deploying more soldiers to the Mexico–United States border, implementing a mass deportation program, starting a trade war with Canada and Mexico, removing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) from the federal government, trying to shrink the size of government via the U.S. federal deferred resignation program and putting most USAID staff on leave, freezing most foreign financial aid, attempting to freeze most domestic financial aid, and withdrawing from some international organizations such as the World Health Organization.

Any interest in adding this to the bottom of the lead? If the WHO part is unimportant that can be removed. I think his anti-LGBT executive orders might deserve a mention if we can think of a good way to say it. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I recently looked into web guidance about sentence length. One academic source (University of Calgary in Qatar) recommends a maximum of 24 words for most sentences. This guidance is not atypical; long sentences are difficult to read. You have an 82-word sentence there. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 06:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2025

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Edit info box to include Donald Trump’s current role as president of the Kennedy center, look at Michael Kaiser‘s Wikipedia page as example of a President of Kennedy center Opama420 (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

• not done. That particular fact is not WP:DUE for this article. As a rule of thumb, when you google "Donald Trump", how many of the articles are talking about his role in serving as chairman of the Kennedy Center? I think it's very few if any. Therefore, not DUE for inclusion here.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 06:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  What’s your definition of how many articles is suitable, and with this logic why does Michael Kaiser have an info box with his service to the Kennedy center? It is clearly an important thing to note because there is precedence for infobox for the president of the Kennedy center. Opama420 (talk) 07:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  I think what Shibboleth is trying to say is that when you search up "Michael Kaiser", the top thing that will come up is his role as the President of the Kennedy center, while if you search up "Donald Trump", the only thing that will show up is his role of president. AsaQuathern (talk) 07:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  In that case, former positions held by individuals would also be removed on thousands of Wikipedia pages with this logic being applied with only their position they are known for existing. No one remembers Avril Haines for her role as Deputy National Security Advisor, she is known for being a director of national intelligence. Either the president of the Kennedy center as an info box should be eliminated on all pages where it exists or it should be included in Trump’s info box. Opama420 (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 08:19, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.